PTAB/USPTO Update - August 2026

• David Cavanaugh, Heather Petruzzi, Patrick Nyman, Jeffrey Wu
• 8.10.2026

USPTO News

• The USPTO announced that, as of July 1, the USPTO’s Trademarks organization achieved full adoption of the USPTO’s enterprise AI tool, Scout LLM, expanding access to all work units, including examining attorneys.
• On July 6, the USPTO announced the selection of Georgia and Alabama innovation ecosystem partnerships for Southeast Community Engagement Office expansion.  The selection of Georgia and Alabama will focus on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs).
• On July 8, Director Squires delivered remarks before the 2026 WIPO Member State Assemblies.
• On July 9, the Coordination Committee of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) appointed Former Deputy Director of the USPTO Laura Peter as the Deputy Director General of WIPO’s Patents and Technology Sector.
• On July 14, the USPTO announced the launch of an International Patent Assignment Initiative intended to simplify and modernize the administration of cross-border patent ownership and assignments.
• On July 17, the USPTO announced that it signed a statement of intent for a new Accelerated Patent Grant (APG) arrangement between the USPTO and Ghana’s IP office, GHIPO.  Under the APG process, an eligible patent applicant who has been granted a U.S. patent by the USPTO may request that Ghana’s IP office grant a patent on a corresponding Ghanaian patent application pending before GHIPO.
• On July 20, the PTAB issued a revision to Standard Operating Procedure 1 (SOP 1), which sets forth the PTAB’s internal procedures for assigning administrative patent judges to panels in appeals and America Invents Act proceedings.  The revision is intended to streamline the assignment process and explains that statutory members of the PTAB may be paneled on cases in the ordinary course consistent with the remainder of SOP 1.
• On July 23, the USPTO held a ceremonial patent and trademark signing to commemorate America’s 250^th birthday.  Director Squires delivered remarks at the event.
• Last month, the USPTO unveiled a new homepage design as part of ongoing efforts to improve federal digital services to the public.  The PTAB likewise launched a new landing webpage and an updated statistics webpage on the USPTO.gov website.

Final Rules

• References to Electronic Filing Systems in Rules of Practice in Filings Pursuant to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, 91 Fed. Reg. 43339 (July 15, 2026) (effectuating a nomenclature change by substituting generic terminology for references to particular electronic filing systems used to submit correspondence related to international trademark applications originating with the United States under the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (Madrid Protocol).  This amendment clarifies terminology without changing filing requirements or statutory obligations)

• Effective as of July 20, 2026, patent applicants and patent owners whose domicile is not located within the U.S. or its territories will be required to be represented by a registered patent practitioner. Required Use by Foreign Applicants and Patent Owners of a Patent Practitioner, 91 Fed. Reg. 13510 (Mar. 20, 2026) [news alert]. 

Interim Rules

• There are no new interim rules.

Proposed Rules

• Requirement to Identify All Real Parties in Interest to a Third Party Request for an Ex Parte Reexamination, 91 Fed. Reg. 46038 (July 22, 2026) [Comments must be received by August 21, 2026] (proposing to amend the rules of practice to require a third party request for ex parte reexamination to include a statement by the third party requester identifying all real parties in interest to the ex parte reexamination request.  This statement would be kept confidential upon request.)

General Notices

• Electronic Filing Systems for Filings Pursuant to the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, 91 Fed. Reg. 43361 (July 15, 2026) (Announcing that the Madrid e-Filing system will become available for filing international applications under the Madrid Protocol starting July 31, 2026)
• The USPTO announced that it considers the effects of the earthquake that struck Japan on July 28, 2026, to be an “extraordinary situation” within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.183, 2.146(a)(5), and 2.148, such that affected applicants and parties may request relief from specified USPTO deadlines and fees [notice]

Legislation

• On July 23, Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced 5104 titled “Fair Seeds for Farmers Act.”  If passed, the bill would “limit intellectual property protection for plants.”
• On July 28, 2658 titled Medication Affordability and Patent Integrity Act was reported out of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders.  If passed, the bill would “require sponsors of drug applications and holders of approved applications to provide certain submissions and communications to the Food and Drug Administration and the United States Patent and Trademark Office.”

PTAB Decisions

• New Precedential PTAB Decisions
• There are no new precedential PTAB decisions.
• New Informative PTAB Decisions
• There are no new informative PTAB decisions.
• Selected Director Review Decisions
• Nearmap US, Inc. v. Eagle View Technologies, Inc., IPR2022-00734
• Order Initiating Sua Sponte Director Review – Paper 53 (Squires July 23, 2026) [following a remand from the Federal Circuit, “initiat[ing] a sua sponte Director Review to reconsider the Board’s Final Decision in light of Patent Owner’s arguments and evidence as to the objective indicia of nonobviousness”]
• Biofrontera Inc., et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., IPR2024-01312
• Decision granting Director Review, vacating the Final Written Decision, and dismissing the Petition – Paper 58 (Squires July 29, 2026) [determining that “there was no justifiable reason for the Board to have reached a different patentability determination than the ITC” where, in the course of parallel validity proceedings, the “ITC concluded the claims had not been shown invalid as obvious, yet the Board subsequently concluded those claims would have been obvious”]
• Genius Sports Ltd. v. SportsCastr Inc., IPR2024-01310
• Decision granting Director Review, vacating-in-part the Final Written Decision, and remanding to the Board for further proceedings – Paper 50 (Squires July 29, 2026) [determining that “the Board did not address the webserver limitation of claim 1 as part of its analysis of Ground 1B” in finding claims 1-11 unpatentable]